View Full Version : Why Did Obama Win the Obama Vote?
Thanks, Gals. :rolleyes:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1957474547001/
Stargazer
11-09-2012, 09:53
I noticed that too.
I am a conservative (with a lot of libertarian leanings) single (divorced) female that is head of household with four children that I have raised. But, I have also been (at one time in my life) a single female without children.
This is my take on it -- FWIW. I am pro-choice by policy, pro-life by personal choice/belief. I don't believe it is the role of government to inject itself in personal choices of this nature.
Sadly, I observed several women talk about this was a vote about women rights. That statement dumbfounded me. When I asked them about what right was Romney/Ryan going to take away... they'd go into abortion, birth-control and choices on what's best for my body/life. I asked, "really, what piece of legislation did they state they'd introduce or repeal to deny birth-control or abortion?" They could not name a piece of legislation but mentioned funding of planned parenthood. I countered so it's not a right that is in question but rather tax dollar funding.
FWIW........
I noticed that too.
Sadly, I observed several women talk about this was a vote about women rights.
Well, they succeeded in cutting off their noses despite their faces.
Stargazer
11-09-2012, 11:12
Well, they succeeded in cutting off their noses despite their faces.
Agreed. Nonetheless, the social fabric of this country is changing. I am the product of the generation that lived through a depression and war which weaved a fabric of country, faith, family and tradition.
I confess I'm in a solemn mood following his re-election and am searching for the why behind it. I've even resorted to watching "Duck Dynasty" for some sanity. :D
Watching all the layoff headlines might start bringing reality back to voters. Hope those Virginians and government contract workers are happy about their vote as well. Boeing's government operations are a changing.........
For the time being I'm regrouping, preparing and praying.
Stargazer
11-09-2012, 11:29
On Wednesday, Murray also laid off 54 people at American Coal, one of his subsidiary companies, and 102 at Utah American Energy, blaming a “war on coal” by the administration of President Barack Obama.”
Murray Energy is the country’s largest privately owned coal mining company, with about 3,000 employees producing about 30 million tons of bituminous coal a year, according to its Web site.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/after-obama-re-election-ceo-reads-prayer-to-staff-announces-layoffs/2012/11/09/e9bca204-2a63-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html
My regret, Lord, is that our young people, including those in my own family, never will know what America was like or might have been. They will pay the price in their reduced standard of living and, most especially, reduced freedom.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/08/Orca-How-the-Romney-Campaign-Suppressed-Its-Own-Vote
Badger52
11-09-2012, 12:52
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/08/Orca-How-the-Romney-Campaign-Suppressed-Its-Own-Vote"suppressed" because of failure in an election-day app?
I might have to write that down in my I'll Be Damned" book as in the Top-5 of the dumbest shit I ever heard.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/267101-gallup-2012-election-had-the-largest-gender-gap-in-history
The gender gap in the 2012 presidential election was the largest since Gallup began tracking the metric in 1952, according to data released by the polling firm on Friday.
President Obama won women by 12 percentage points, while Mitt Romney won men by 8. That’s a 20-point gender gap, edging out the 1984 election when Ronald Reagan defeated Democrat Walter Mondale in a landslide.
Reagan won both men and women in that election, but carried men by 28 points and women by only 10 – a disparity of 18 points.
2012 was the fifth straight election to feature a double-digit gender gap.
Still, Romney performed better among women than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) did in 2008. Obama had a 14-point advantage among female voters over his GOP counterpart that year. Romney also outperformed McCain among men in this election – in 2008 Obama and McCain split the male vote.
The politics of gender played a significant role throughout the 2012 election, as Romney looked to cut into Obama’s advantage among female voters by framing the economy as a women’s issue.
The strategy worked for a while, as polls showed women flocking to the GOP challenger after his strong first debate performance. But Romney was unable to hold on to those gains in the final weeks of the campaign, and the Obama campaign relentlessly portrayed the GOP candidate as a throwback to the 1950s in his views on women's reproductive and pay equity issues.
Romney may also have been hurt by two Republican House candidates, former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) and Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Both Senate candidates, who lost their election bids, made controversial comments about rape and abortion that reignited the Democratic line of attack from earlier in the cycle that the GOP is looking to “turn back the clock” on women’s issues.
Snip
Looks like the only thing we conservatives have to do to win is become libs.
Don't hold your breath.
ZonieDiver
11-10-2012, 08:35
Looks like the only thing we conservatives have to do to win is become libs.
Don't hold your breath.
I guess part of that is in your definition of 'conservative'.
What's more important to you?
1) Avoiding falling off the coming fiscal cliff, or
2) Maintaining your right to "keep and bear" arms, or
3) Telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
If I told you that you could have "two out of three" of those (and remember "Meatloaf" says "two out of three ain't bad"), which would you choose?
Or would you just say, "Give me all three, or I'll take NOTHING!" (Because, ladies and gentlemn, that is precisely what's going to happen if the GOP doesn't wake the hell up, tell the radicals who believe that "The Flintstones" IS reality, and decide what is most important RIGHT now.)
I know there are a lot of people who pulled the lever for Obama who really believe they were not given any other viable option.
I know there are a lot of people who pulled the lever for Obama who really believe they were not given any other viable option.
Why? Because Romney was gonna outlaw birth control? Because he wasn't. Because he was gonna lead us over the fiscal cliff? Repeal the 2d ammendment? I don't see how people could believe they had no viable option.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/267101-gallup-2012-election-had-the-largest-gender-gap-in-history
The gender gap in the 2012 presidential election was the largest since Gallup began tracking the metric in 1952, according to data released by the polling firm on Friday.
President Obama won women by 12 percentage points, while Mitt Romney won men by 8. That’s a 20-point gender gap, edging out the 1984 election when Ronald Reagan defeated Democrat Walter Mondale in a landslide.
Reagan won both men and women in that election, but carried men by 28 points and women by only 10 – a disparity of 18 points.
2012 was the fifth straight election to feature a double-digit gender gap.
Still, Romney performed better among women than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) did in 2008. Obama had a 14-point advantage among female voters over his GOP counterpart that year. Romney also outperformed McCain among men in this election – in 2008 Obama and McCain split the male vote.
The politics of gender played a significant role throughout the 2012 election, as Romney looked to cut into Obama’s advantage among female voters by framing the economy as a women’s issue.
The strategy worked for a while, as polls showed women flocking to the GOP challenger after his strong first debate performance. But Romney was unable to hold on to those gains in the final weeks of the campaign, and the Obama campaign relentlessly portrayed the GOP candidate as a throwback to the 1950s in his views on women's reproductive and pay equity issues.
Romney may also have been hurt by two Republican House candidates, former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) and Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Both Senate candidates, who lost their election bids, made controversial comments about rape and abortion that reignited the Democratic line of attack from earlier in the cycle that the GOP is looking to “turn back the clock” on women’s issues.
Snip
With the way you have been bitching you sound like a woman with PMS.
From what I've seen and heard, when it comes to women, voting, and political party affiliation, candidates like Akin-MO ("legitimate rape") and Mourdock-IN (opposing abortions for rape-induced pregnancy because it’s “something God intended.”) being backed by any party scare the hell out of people and have a strong influence on their voting choices.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
ZonieDiver
11-10-2012, 09:03
Because he wasn't.
You may know this. I may know this. However, there were obviously a LOT of people out there who weren't so sure about this. Given the dynamics illlustrated in the GOP primary, some of the buffoonish statements by R officeholders trying to "move on up to the Eastside", and the way the Rs let the Ds paint the landscape (and remember... the Rs BROUGHT it up... stepped right into the leghold trap the Ds put out- grabbing for the little birth control bait that had been put there), how could those people think anything else?
Those same people, and many others, "know" that Obama is not a socialist, isn't going to send his TSA VIPR "brownshirts" after us, or use his magical Muslim ring to let the MB reign in DC. They "know" that just like you "know" Romney wouldn't "outlaw birth control".
The choice is before us as Rs and conservatives. We are going to have to choose. I've made mine. I know what is most important to the continued prosperity and freedom of this country I love. It isn't mucking about over birth control. "Not at this juncture. Wouldn't be prudent."
With the way you have been bitching you sound like a woman with PMS.
lol Right. :rolleyes:
I don't take credit for the article.
Try dropping denial from your perspective, and you might see the truth for what it is. {**OFFENSIVE TEXT**}
Edited by Richard.
You may know this. I may know this. However, there were obviously a LOT of people out there who weren't so sure about this. Given the dynamics illlustrated in the GOP primary, some of the buffoonish statements by R officeholders trying to "move on up to the Eastside", and the way the Rs let the Ds paint the landscape (and remember... the Rs BROUGHT it up... stepped right into the leghold trap the Ds put out- grabbing for the little birth control bait that had been put there), how could those people think anything else?
Those same people, and many others, "know" that Obama is not a socialist, isn't going to send his TSA VIPR "brownshirts" after us, or use his magical Muslim ring to let the MB reign in DC. They "know" that just like you "know" Romney wouldn't "outlaw birth control".
The choice is before us as Rs and conservatives. We are going to have to choose. I've made mine. I know what is most important to the continued prosperity and freedom of this country I love. It isn't mucking about over birth control. "Not at this juncture. Wouldn't be prudent."
I see your point.
Well, I blame the mainstream media for the voters' ignorance.
From what I've seen and heard, when it comes to women, voting, and political party affiliation, candidates like Akin-MO ("legitimate rape") and Mourdock-IN (opposing abortions for rape-induced pregnancy because it’s “something God intended.”) being backed by any party scare the hell out of people and have a strong influence on their voting choices.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Agreed. Ruined our chances for the Senate.
ZonieDiver
11-10-2012, 09:22
I see your point.
Well, I blame the mainstream media for the voters' ignorance.
You and I agree there, my Brother.
However, to me it is part of gathering intel on your 'enemy' and knowing the capabilities they possess. IF your enemy controls media, HOW do you overcome that? To me, that is the SF way of thinking. There is a way. You have to find it.
For sure, the way is NOT to go for the bait...what your "enemy" knows is a hot-button issue for many in your base. State your opposition to their position succinctly and BRIEFLY...with NO details (that's what "they" do!)...and move out smartly.
Stay on your major objectives. Don't let them lure you into an "Anvil and Hammer" by dangling an understrenth platoon out in the open. As far as I am concerned, that is exactly what happened to Romney and the Rs in that issue.
And, as we saw, it cost them... dearly. And us. I said it right before the election, after that last debate, that the Romney campaign had managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They did. That's what hurts the most.
PS - I do wear 'tinfoil' at times. My 'tinfoil' often tells me that Rush, Glen and some of the "usual suspects" at Fox are really on the payroll of the DNC.
lol Right. :rolleyes:
I don't take credit for the article.
Try dropping denial from your perspective, and you might see the truth for what it is. {**OFFENSIVE TEXT**}
Edited by Richard.
From my perspective, it is men like you that push women to the Dems. For the party of smaller government and personal responsibility there are a ton of white males out there that seem a little too interested in what goes on behind the bedroom doors of the American populace. There are a lot of women out there who believe they should be able to make decisions about their own bodies, not old white men.
Do I belive that way? No I don't because I was raised in a two parent home who valued the family and religeon. But much of America is now growing up in single parent households and don't go to church.
So instead of bashing people you disagree with over the head with all your supposed knowledge and believing that groups who vote diffferently than you are idiots, I believe it should be done a different way.
I have a 15 year old little girl who had an altercation with another little girl the day after the election. Other girl walks into class covered in Obama stuff. Jordan just ignored her until the other girl thought she was being disrespectful by not cheering for Obama's re-election. My daughter took her to school, literally. She explained exactly why she was not an Obama supporter, and the other girl had no comeback. Why, because Jordan knew the issues and she didn't. Jordan got a standing ovation, and the teacher asked her to join the debate team :)
So what does this have to do with my previous points? Our house is the house all J's friends hang out at. So they get to hear thoughtful political discussions instead of the crap most people are fed. Quite a few of these girls come from single parent homes so I spend time talking to them about sex, birth control etc. If they spend the night on Saturday, they are invited to Mass on Sunday. Most of them come. I have been the confirmation sponsor to 3 of those girls who have gone throught the RCIA process to become Catholic.
So instead of just telling them what I believe, I show them through my actions that being Christian and Republican is nothing to be afraid of.
So in my own way I have hopefully brought some of the next elections voters over to our side. You may find your way of doing things work better for you. I prefer my way.
I think afchic's response can tie in nicely with the "how to fix the mess we're in" thread.
We have to reach our young and teach them by example, deeds and words.
I think afchic's response can tie in nicely with the "how to fix the mess we're in" thread.
We have to reach our young and teach them by example, deeds and words.
The problem is, many, many women in this Country don't think with their heads. They bow up if a subject touches anything concerning feminism, abortion, gender equality, blah.
Very selfish perspective.
I'll make it clear (again) that I'm not including the vast majority of female posters to this BB, indeed I'm only targeting those who voted for Obama solely because of the Fluke-ish issue, with comments such as this:
Be concerned about something besides your reproductive systems, ladies.
I think some women are frustrated that certain vocations are restricted from access (a la SF, Ranger, SEAL) because women just physiologically cannot do it; that stone cold fact colors not only their attitudes, but their thought processes as well.
Badger52
11-11-2012, 09:45
I wonder how many women due to their seemingly inherent nurturing tendency have offspring currently using some form of Guv "safety net" and fear - in the immediate term - for the entitlement rug being pulled out. I'm not deriding that someone would consider that, but wonder if it's a 'Sophie's Choice' type occurrence, vs. the parent/child conversation that could be had about what a worse situation things will be in, when/if their young adult progeny, struggling, comes out the other end of the college/job-search tunnel.
This state of affairs already exists but wonder if that continues to be a voting dynamic that plays.
(Just an empty nest FOG here w/ strong coffee & CW key on a day of reflection.)
Dozer523
11-11-2012, 10:36
The problem is, many, many women in this Country don't think with their heads.Now you tell us what women DON'T think with.
You shared what you think women DO think with and that was expunged by a moderator.
You've lost any credibility to post on this subject.
Now you tell us what women DON'T think with.
You shared what you think women DO think with and that was expunged by a moderator.
You've lost any credibility to post on this subject.
lol Dozer, you're just a poster. You're not a moderator, nor or you an administrator. If you ever become one, I'll leave the BB, trust me.
Since you have no credibility with me, your current post has the same impact as your others. Zero.
You want to get personal about it, I'll PM you a map to my casa; if you come out here, though, you might want to do a site survey and some research on me, personally.
The Reaper
11-11-2012, 11:07
The bickering stops now, or this thread will be closed.
Make your points and leave the personal attacks and threats out of it.
You guys want to butt heads, step out back or take it to PMs.
Return to the OP for the intent of the thread, and stay with it or start a new thread on the new subject. Add your opinion or facts to the discussion without directing them at the other person.
Be respectful of others' viewpoints.
Stop the name calling.
QPs here cut other QPs a lot of slack in consideration and professional courtesy.
Quiet. Professional. Live it.
TR
Stargazer
11-11-2012, 11:25
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/08/us/politics/obama-was-not-as-strong-as-in-2008-but-strong-enough.html
http://www.voterparticipation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/wvwv_diagram.jpg
But lumping more than 50 percent of the population into a group and talking about it as a single unit can oversimplify things a lot. Go deeper into the 2012 exit poll numbers to look at the women's vote and picture begins to change.
To be clear, the gender gap in America is not a myth—the numbers show it's real—but it's also very complicated. It can grow or shrink depending on a host of factors: race, age, marital status, even geography.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/women-are-not-a-unified-voting-bloc/265007/
Who best marketed their message to the factors noted above?
I am a conservative individual and as noted previously I believe in a policy that is pro-choice but as an INDIVIDUAL live by pro-life. I am not alone with many women of similar beliefs. However, I do not vote on that factor alone, I cast my vote based on who I believe is the best person/plan for governance at the federal and state level.
With respect to women casting votes based on government dependency... I am sure that is true in some cases. The women who I heard make issue with the 'women rights' were not eligible based on their financial status. One woman who was the most vocal advocate has two children currently serving, white, married, accountant, financially secure, Catholic and lives in Texas to boot.
Dems did a better job of marketing to the voting demographics and creating or exacerbating women issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/08/us/politics/obama-was-not-as-strong-as-in-2008-but-strong-enough.html
http://www.voterparticipation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/wvwv_diagram.jpg
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/women-are-not-a-unified-voting-bloc/265007/
Dems did a better job of marketing to the voting demographics and creating or exacerbating women issues.
That fact's crucial to my point, if you think about it.
That fact's crucial to my point, if you think about it.
To date you have offered your view of the problem, ie women voters. I am interested in what your view is on the solution. It is easy to identify the problem, but as one GO once told me, "Unless you have a solution I don't want to hear about your problem."
To date you have offered your view of the problem, ie women voters. I am interested in what your view is on the solution. It is easy to identify the problem, but as one GO once told me, "Unless you have a solution I don't want to hear about your problem."
Education as opposed to propaganda.
The points of view of many women have been manipulated by leftists to the point that birth control is not only the prime political issue, but the only one.
Freedom, in this Country, is taking a second place to distracting points of argument.
There are other areas in which women (and men) have been led down the wrong path, but for both past elections, BC has been the most crucial next the entitlement carrot.
I've never intended to imply that women aren't smart enough to figure out that they're being led around the block by leftists with an agenda to dismantle America's foundation, but it obviously hasn't dawned on the ones who voted for re-election.
We don't have that many to educate; it's not like Obama won by a landslide.
MOO, arguments of "false concsciousness" among one cohort or another was at the core of. Communism's failure as a political philosophy. Telling people that they shouldn't be concerned with what they're concerned with just feeds into the dynamic that has tthe GOP on the outside looking in.
MOO, arguments of "false concsciousness" among one cohort or another was at the core of. Communism's failure as a political philosophy. Telling people that they shouldn't be concerned with what they're concerned with just feeds into the dynamic that has tthe GOP on the outside looking in.
If you mean the liberals convincing kids they shouldn't worry about the difference between right and wrong, I agree.
If you mean the liberals convincing kids they shouldn't worry about the difference between right and wrong, I agree.
As I see it, the issue is that too many Americans make 100% agreement and absolute conformity a precondition for treating others with respect and dignity.
Education as opposed to propaganda.
The points of view of many women have been manipulated by leftists to the point that birth control is not only the prime political issue, but the only one.
Freedom, in this Country, is taking a second place to distracting points of argument.
There are other areas in which women (and men) have been led down the wrong path, but for both past elections, BC has been the most crucial next the entitlement carrot.
I've never intended to imply that women aren't smart enough to figure out that they're being led around the block by leftists with an agenda to dismantle America's foundation, but it obviously hasn't dawned on the ones who voted for re-election.
We don't have that many to educate; it's not like Obama won by a landslide.
I am sure there are women out there who are single issue voters, and BC may be that issue for some of them. But I don't believe that to ne the case with a majority of women.
Women now make up 47% of the workforce and are 60% more likely to earn a bachelors degree than men. It is my belief the Dems make a more coherent argument to these women, and the Repubs have allowed them to do it.
Until we can make.a coherent argument based on economics to tjese women.we.are going to continue to see the gender gap. By having more prominent women speaking out for the Republican view of the world, we will start to.see a.difference. But when women.such as Ann Colter and Laura Ingram are continued to be seen as women's republican voice we won't win the argumnet.
Women like Ms. Love in Utah and others like her have to have a more prominent voice in our party.
Well, with the 28 hour work week fixin' to be the anti Obamacare fix for staying under the 30 hour full time employment threshold looks like more and more folks will be able to sit at home and watch TV to become more informed .
Papa John's and Applebees are taking some heat - with a little word twisting help from the MSM - right now because they announced it but look for just about any food service, hotel cleaning, odd job place that can get away with it start reducing worker's hours.
Hmm, thinking on that - looks to be a lot of low end workers fixin' to take it in the shorts because of Obamacare.
Well, with the 28 hour work week fixin' to be the anti Obamacare fix for staying under the 30 hour full time employment threshold looks like more and more folks will be able to sit at home and watch TV to become more informed.
Depends on the channel. Could easily get dumber.
Depends on the channel. Could easily get dumber.
I think that was his point!
Depends on the channel. Could easily get dumber.
I fixed it - went to pink.
I fixed it - went to pink.
lol I only now caught a snap on that one. :D
As a female who did go through a particularly violent attempted rape, many many years ago, comments on the subject do pique my interest.
No, I am not a single issue voter. If I was, that would be my right, but I am not. That said, guess how much I admire the Republican Party for trying to define itself in primaries by how pro-life a candidate can be to the point of faulty biology.
If you truly want to figure out why President Obama was reeclected, I suggest some time watching MSNBC in equal amounts of time to Fox. It can start switching from Fox and Friends to Morning Joe (hosted by a moderate Republican).
Any time I wanted to understand the Soviets, I did not look to US sources to do it. Intel is not gleened from talking to eachother about "them."
Just my 2 cents.
Point being - go back to the Obamacare threads we had here when the bill was being fought over and finally passed.
We knew back then the bad stuff didn't start kicking in until 2013 - after the 2012 elections.
We knew back then companies would find it cheaper to dump their plans and pay the fines.
So should anybody really be surprised when their plan is dumped, their hours cut?
If you truly want to figure out why President Obama was reeclected, I suggest some time watching MSNBC in equal amounts of time to Fox. It can start switching from Fox and Friends to Morning Joe (hosted by a moderate Republican).
Any time I wanted to understand the Soviets, I did not look to US sources to do it. Intel is not gleened from talking to eachother about "them."
Just my 2 cents.
I don't even get FOX, and I graduated from O&I over 20 years ago. Thanks, anyway.
The Reaper
11-11-2012, 13:35
As I see it, the issue is that too many Americans make 100% agreement and absolute conformity a precondition for treating others with respect and dignity.
Where is the call for Dems to repudiate their extreme positions?
I don't recall a lot of bi-partisan outreach in the 2009-2011 period when the Democrats had near-total control of the legislative process. They rammed legislation they wanted through and to hell with any opposition that could not muster the votes to stop it. Votes were bought from the opposition to close the deal in a manner that would have made Huey Long proud. They passed legislation that they themselves had not completely read, without allowing public review, and as the administration promised in 2008.
The election results lead me to believe that there is a very close margin in this country of opposing views.
Should we adopt positions by the number of voters they garner, or by the benefit of the position to the principles the nation was founded on?
Is the solution offered now for Republicans to become Democrats in all but names?
TR
As I see it, the issue is that too many Americans make 100% agreement and absolute conformity a precondition for treating others with respect and dignity.
They sure do. Especially Axelrod, Reid and Pelosi.
Welcome to the party folks.
Link in, scroll down and follow the links.
http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/
Badger52
11-11-2012, 16:06
Welcome to the party folks.
Link in, scroll down and follow the links.
http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/Thank you Pete. That's like finding the ASP gate open. (The linked article RE Indiana's oldest ethanol plant shutting down (idling 40) was worth the ticket for its posting at 2151 hrs on 6 Nov.) As the local Chamber of Commerce's monthly after-hours member schmooze event gets smaller I wonder what the small-talk will turn to. Will any left in the room channel this thread: Why?
Economic couch potatoes are hard to wean; there is some exposure to the elements required to instill a desire to work oneself back into that cozy living room.
Paragrouper
11-11-2012, 16:23
Welcome to the party folks.
Link in, scroll down and follow the links.
http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/
I wonder if they are handing out free phones and food-stamps as party favors or if that was just a 'limited time offer.'
I wonder if they are handing out free phones and food-stamps as party favors or if that was just a 'limited time offer.'
'They Better Give Me A Walmart Gift Card Or Something'...
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/09/city-to-hold-job-fair-today-at-kennedy-king-college/
How could O let this happen in his City????
'They Better Give Me A Walmart Gift Card Or Something'...
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/09/city-to-hold-job-fair-today-at-kennedy-king-college/
How could O let this happen in his City????
That's despicable that you'd have people desperately needing jobs line up for 6 hours before the event only to get inside and find out it was a "meet and greet" with a few city officials. All applications for the available jobs were only accepted online. They didn't even have someone there with a computer to help people apply online. Nothing.
"You wore a nice suit and brought a resume? Sucker! Can you please move over there for the photo op with Rahm Emanuel?"
You think service in America is bad now, just wait till the incompetent govt is running everything......
President Obama won women by 12 percentage points, while Mitt Romney won men by 8. That’s a 20-point gender gap, edging out the 1984 election when Ronald Reagan defeated Democrat Walter Mondale in a landslide.
... and the Obama campaign relentlessly portrayed the GOP candidate as a throwback to the 1950s in his views on women's reproductive and pay equity issues.
Snipped for brevity.
As Good as it Gets
"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."
Men work 9% more hours on the job than women.
The person who can spend whatever necessary hours on vital projects, gets the project. More often than not, that person is male.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/jul/wk1/art01.htm
Women leave their employers to follow their husbands at a rate of 10 to 1 vs the males.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199509/moving-story-spouses
The chance that, with 15 years experience, a woman has "grown up" inside a particular corporation are significantly less than that of her counterpart. The chance of a helpful former co-worker at the top of the food chain, are much smaller. Experience with how the system really works , and the identity of the real doers is less.
Add "longevity raises", that little increase that comes with successful years of service with the company, the gap grows.
These are personal choices. The consequences are not unjust.
First, let us stop pretending that abortion is a male/female thing. See here for an example....
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/22/do-men-and-women-view-abortion
It is true that woman tend to feel more strongly about the issue then men do, but that cuts both ways. As the polls above show, Woman are more likely to take absolute positions against abortion then men are. I know a couple of woman who would vote Democrat except for the abortion issue.
Second, the extent that woman are more likely to vote Democrat then Republican is amplified by the fact that minorities are more likely to vote Democrat. The fact that the black vote does not balance is a major reason why more woman vote democrat. This is an example from 2009 because I was to lazy to dig up 2012. (http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/10/09/black-males-lag-far-behind-black-women-in-registration-and-voting/)
The bottom line is that the majority of this country voted to have a Republican representative and the majority voted to have Obama is president. And adjusted for race and income (remember that females tend to be poorer if they are single and have children) the male/female vote was a few percentages of each other. That is a few points that the Republicans would have loved to have, but not at the expense of destroying their base permanently.
The country is moving away from conservative social values in all there forms. So in the long run I expect the Republican party to abandon its opposition to abortion. But as it stands right now, the Republican party will lose more female voters than it gains if it changes its stance on abortion. Most of the female voters who vote democrat will not change their votes regardless (black woman, single white urban woman, etc). And a large portion of the female Evangelical vote will stay home if they have to choose between two candidates that support abortion.
By an large, these woman do not care about guns and they don't care about foreign policy. But they do donate their time to Birthright and they do feel very passionate about the abortion issue. And they make there feelings known very strongly at the grassroots level of the Republican party. That is why the Republican party has not changed yet even though a lot of money in the Republican party would like it to.
But I would not get to excited over the demise/change of the Republican party just yet. I heard all this talk about permanent realignment when Clinton was President. But Bush still manged to win both times (and increase his vote total to boot which Obama did not manage to do). This country has a strong bias towards returning the incumbent and running a bland rich guy from Massachusetts is not the best way of overcoming that bias as both parties have found out.
"Throwback to the '50's?" lol That's extreme.
I don't want to go back to the '50's in any other sense than a knowledge of the difference between right and wrong.
The new goal for girls now seems to be be like Beyonce.
Women forgot the fact that you don't need to worry about abortion if you don't copulate until you're married, and do it only with a husband who's not too lazy to work.
Men work 9% more hours on the job than women.
That could mean that women can get the job done in less time. :munchin
That could mean that women can get the job done in less time. :munchin
lol WCH, every now and then you come up with an outstanding point. :D
"Throwback to the '50's?" lol That's extreme.
I don't want to go back to the '50's in any other sense than a knowledge of the difference between right and wrong.
The new goal for girls now seems to be be like Beyonce.
Women forgot the fact that you don't need to worry about abortion if you don't copulate until you're married, and do it only with a husband who's not too lazy to work.
Only women need to remember this? They are copulating with someone, and if they are getting pregnant beause of it, my bet is that it is with a member of the male species. Maybe both men and women need to be more responsible.
Only women need to remember this? They are copulating with someone, and if they are getting pregnant beause of it, my bet is that it is with a member of the male species. Maybe both men and women need to be more responsible.
Of course. Takes two to tango.
charlietwo
11-12-2012, 10:02
Only women need to remember this? They are copulating with someone, and if they are getting pregnant beause of it, my bet is that it is with a member of the male species. Maybe both men and women need to be more responsible.
Important note: abortion doesn't require the consent of the father to be done, as far as I know. Fathers are required to pay child support if the mother decides against abortion, however.
The problem with the abortion topic is that it has become a question of 'women's rights' and not a question of life and death. The child in the womb is seen as an object owned by the woman, and not as a growing life. Any representatives who point this out are demonized by progressives and their ranks, a la Rules For Radicals.
If God were to appear tomorrow and tell people that abortion is abhorrent and evil, I would guess that at least 20% of the population (men and women) would still scoff and ignore (predominately progressives and their ranks, who coincidentally hate God and the idea of God).
Abortion aside, it appears our country is at an impasse and only calamity will break it. The demands of the progressives and their dependents necessitate that the demands of conservatives are to be labelled as immoral and selfish. Entitlements vs. Liberty constrained by the Constitution. Liberty, by it's nature, can not buy votes. Entitlements can.
Solutions? Only one viable strategy remains for those who are aware: preparation.
Important note: abortion doesn't require the consent of the father to be done, as far as I know. Fathers are required to pay child support if the mother decides against abortion, however.
The problem with the abortion topic is that it has become a question of 'women's rights' and not a question of life and death. The child in the womb is seen as an object owned by the woman, and not as a growing life. Any representatives who point this out are demonized by progressives and their ranks, a la Rules For Radicals.
If God were to appear tomorrow and tell people that abortion is abhorrent and evil, I would guess that at least 20% of the population (men and women) would still scoff and ignore (predominately progressives and their ranks, who coincidentally hate God and the idea of God).
Abortion aside, it appears our country is at an impasse and only calamity will break it. The demands of the progressives and their dependents necessitate that the demands of conservatives are to be labelled as immoral and selfish. Entitlements vs. Liberty constrained by the Constitution. Liberty, by it's nature, can not buy votes. Entitlements can.
Solutions? Only one viable strategy remains for those who are aware: preparation.
You are wrong about your assumption between abortion and child support. I became pregnant when I was a young LT. Abortion never entered into my thought process. I never recieved a dime of child support from the biological father. It was hard, financially, but well worth it emotionally. He never wanted her. I didn't want someone in her life, even if it was only financially, who didn't willingly want to be there. We are all better off for my decision to include my husband and his children.
I am not the only woman to have made that decision
As long as women are the ones who carry the child, ultimately the decision is theirs. Does it suck. You bet. I know a few men who would have loved to raise their child, but the woman took that choice away from them. I agree a child in the womb is not owned by the mother. It is a human in and of itself. Unfortunately too many women see it as a burden. Which is why I have told my girls and boys if you can't handle the responsibility of a child, you aren't mature enough to have sex. Seems to have worked so far.
Bottom line, sex is the responsibility of both partners. If you don't want to face a child or an abortion make sure you take precautions against it. Or simply control your urges. Not too difficult in my book.
Where is the call for Dems to repudiate their extreme positions?
I don't recall a lot of bi-partisan outreach in the 2009-2011 period when the Democrats had near-total control of the legislative process. They rammed legislation they wanted through and to hell with any opposition that could not muster the votes to stop it. Votes were bought from the opposition to close the deal in a manner that would have made Huey Long proud. They passed legislation that they themselves had not completely read, without allowing public review, and as the administration promised in 2008.
The election results lead me to believe that there is a very close margin in this country of opposing views.
Should we adopt positions by the number of voters they garner, or by the benefit of the position to the principles the nation was founded on?
Is the solution offered now for Republicans to become Democrats in all but names?
TRIMO, there's a big difference between taking a more moderate tone than moderating one's political philosophy and policy preferences.
Before we can make headway against the growing power of the Democratic Party, we need to gain a much better understanding of our nation's past and its present, and also develop more sustainable projections of the future. Right now, we're too comfortable with anachronistic romantic fantasies of the '50s (1750s, 1850s, 1950s, take your pick), a myopic view of today's complex issues, intellectually deficient conceptions of competing political philosophies, and projections of policy debate situated in religious prophecy.
Metaphorically speaking, right now we sound like the Los Angeles Lakers and some of their fans following the 1984 NBA Finals. The Lakers didn't lose because of the "ghosts of Celtics past," nor a leprechaun, nor bad officiating, nor dirty play, nor "biased" commentary from Tom Heinsohn. They lost because they got outplayed--if not outcoached--by a squad composed of profoundly skilled players who made fewer mistakes when it mattered. Not withstanding the insistence of some fans that the team needed to trade Cap and/or Buck or that the league needed to investigate the Celtics or to change the rules, those who knew what they were talking about understood that the solutions centered around making slight adjustments to the roster, working harder (and smarter) during the off season, and competing better.
Almost thirty years later, the Lakers and some of their fans--except those mouth breathing populists who belong to the Cult of the Black Mamba--understand that victory and defeat have almost everything to do with what the good guys do and almost nothing to do with what the bad guys do. (Hey, Jim Buss, great hire!)
Or simply control your urges. Not too difficult in my book.
Now, all we have to do is convince the Flukes of the Country.
Now, all we have to do is convince the Flukes of the Country.Some already have--just not in the ways the rest of us need.
Some already have--just not in the ways the rest of us need.
Mind elaborating on that? I know you can elaborate.
Stargazer
11-12-2012, 11:35
I believe this opinion written by Heather Mac Donald of NRO, hits on key social changes that are under-foot. Those of us who believe in less government in our lives may be swimming against the current when it comes to the minority and urban demographics.
If Republicans want to change their stance on immigration, they should do so on the merits, not out of a belief that only immigration policy stands between them and a Republican Hispanic majority. It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation. Hispanics will prove to be even more decisive in the victory of Governor Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30, which raised upper-income taxes and the sales tax, than in the Obama election.
And California is the wave of the future. A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.
I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”
And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers’ aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.
The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.
The demographic changes set into motion by official and de facto immigration policy favoring low-skilled over high-skilled immigrants mean that a Republican party that purports to stand for small government and free markets faces an uncertain future.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald
Mind elaborating on that? I know you can elaborate.Thanks in no small part to a public education and the teaching of left of center academics, I can debate the most controversial of public policy issues with just about anyone.
I can out think and out talk people individually, in pairs, trios, quartets, and groups. While my opponents are unlikely to change their minds, they're going to walk away from the conversations with several things to think about and with an increased appreciation of the difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable.
That is, until my opponents start pointing to the type of rhetoric used in threads like this one.
Bluntly, some (read: many) who sit on the right side of the aisle and on the right side of many--but not all--of the issues, need to realize that they're getting in the way and that they're doing more harm than good.
charlietwo
11-12-2012, 12:13
Bluntly, some (read: many) who sit on the right side of the aisle and on the right side of many--but not all--of the issues, need to realize that they're getting in the way and that they're doing more harm than good.
Harm in the pursuit of what exactly?
charlietwo
11-12-2012, 12:16
You are wrong about your assumption between abortion and child support. I became pregnant when I was a young LT. Abortion never entered into my thought process. I never recieved a dime of child support from the biological father. It was hard, financially, but well worth it emotionally.
I'm not sure we disagree on anything here.
If you pursued it, I assume you could have received child support if you wanted?
I'm not an expert in this subject, but I've never heard of a woman who could prove paternity being denied recourse of child support in the legal system.
Note afchic: we are in agreement in regards to the morality of this.
The Reaper
11-12-2012, 12:18
D:
Do you think Wasserman-Schultz represents the interests of 51% of this country?
Are her comments as the Chair of the DNC not representative of the positions of the Party? If not, why is she the Chair?
I would maintain that Romney is much more moderate and closer to the center than the leadership of the Dims. More likely to compromise as well.
In short, I believe that the Reps tacked far closer to the middle than the Dims did. Very little compromise in their positions.
I can out think and out talk people individually, in pairs, trios, quartets, and groups.
Very Presidential of you. Quite humble as well.
TR
If the safty net is so important to Latino voters how come Mexico and other similar countries don't have better ones?
What? They only find their values when they get here? Or are their countries such crap holes they can only give way to their values here?
Or are these more of the same "we can do more if we only had more of other folk's money"?
Read through Stargazer's post again. We've gone over the tipping point. The gemme's have won. All we're doing now is fighting a delaying action.
Might as well go whole hog and get it over with.
Thanks in no small part to a public education and the teaching of left of center academics, I can debate the most controversial of public policy issues with just about anyone.
I can out think and out talk people individually, in pairs, trios, quartets, and groups. While my opponents are unlikely to change their minds, they're going to walk away from the conversations with several things to think about and with an increased appreciation of the difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable.
That is, until my opponents start pointing to the type of rhetoric used in threads like this one.
Bluntly, some (read: many) who sit on the right side of the aisle and on the right side of many--but not all--of the issues, need to realize that they're getting in the way and that they're doing more harm than good.
I've never been impressed with mealy-mouthed, nuanced psychobabble, myself.
Harm in the pursuit of what exactly?Civil discourse aimed at building consensus, changing minds, and formulating policy options that are politically and economically sustainable and actually solve the problems they're designed to address.
Don't get me wrong. Don't misread what I'm saying. As many of my posts make clear, I am not exactly a people person. I get as angry/bent out of shape as often as the next guy. (And often, for the most petty of reasons. I've wished mayhem upon people because...well, just because. I mean, look at that idiot, he/she has reading that one page for three minutes. And that guy/gal over there, standing in line for ten minutes and he/she still doesn't know what to order. And don't get me started on that MF-er! That one, right there--with the skinny jeans worn beneath the waist...no, not that one, the OTHER one. Yeah, him. He's asked the same question twice, gotten the same answer both times and is about to ask the question again. And hey, hey, soccer mom with the yoga pants--before telling everyone what a great parent you are, how about you go and see how many cell phones your daughter has? Yes, yes! Well done, you progressive liberal dipshit with the POTUS 2012 bumpersticker on your Prius. You'll vote for the black guy but do everything you can to not make eye contact with people of color. Hey...hey! Are you going to pay for that newspaper before you read it. Whatever.)
But notwithstanding these and other unbitter thoughts, I am mindful of the question: "Do I want to be angry with people who have the temerity to make choices I don't approve or do I want to get an issue solved?"
Civil discourse aimed at building consensus, changing minds, and formulating policy options that are politically and economically sustainable and actually solve the problems they're designed to address.
Don't get me wrong. Don't misread what I'm saying. As many of my posts make clear, I am not exactly a people person. I get as angry/bent out of shape as often as the next guy. (And often, for the most petty of reasons. I've wished mayhem upon people because...well, just because. I mean, look at that idiot, he/she has reading that one page for three minutes. And that guy/gal over there, standing in line for ten minutes and he/she still doesn't know what to order. And don't get me started on that MF-er! That one, right there--with the skinny jeans worn beneath the waist...no, not that one, the OTHER one. Yeah, him. He's asked the same question twice, gotten the same answer both times and is about to ask the question again. And hey, hey, soccer mom with the yoga pants--before telling everyone what a great parent you are, how about you go and see how many cell phones your daughter has? Yes, yes! Well done, you progressive liberal dipshit with the POTUS 2012 bumpersticker on your Prius. You'll vote for the black guy but do everything you can to not make eye contact with people of color. Hey...hey! Are you going to pay for that newspaper before you read it. Whatever.)
But notwithstanding these and other unbitter thoughts, I am mindful of the question: "Do I want to be angry with people who have the temerity to make choices I don't approve or do I want to get an issue solved?"
lol Outstanding! Sound like the Old Sigaba, now.
And, yes. Be angry.
I've never been impressed with mealy-mouthed, nuanced psychobabble, myself.Then why did you initially support Gingrich and predict he'd win the presidency?:munchin
Then why did you initially support Gingrich and predict he'd win the presidency?:munchin
Because he was ABO. Same reason I supported Romney.
Why did you vote for Obama and claim to be a Republican?
charlietwo
11-12-2012, 13:09
Civil discourse aimed at building consensus, changing minds, and formulating policy options that are politically and economically sustainable and actually solve the problems they're designed to address.
...
But notwithstanding these and other unbitter thoughts, I am mindful of the question: "Do I want to be angry with people who have the temerity to make choices I don't approve or do I want to get an issue solved?"
I would agree with you if I believed progressives viewed the Constitution as the foundation and basis for their proposed policy options. They obviously do not, hence the conflict: conservatives refuse to accept demands that the Constitution needs to be censored, ignored, or eliminated. There is no other root conflict that I am aware of.
The only thing that is sustainable in the short term at this point is more dependency. Long term solutions remain unclear, but I don't see a situation where we as a nation do not head towards a greater loss of liberty in the pursuit of an increase in perceived security.
Now, all we have to do is convince the Flukes of the Country.
Or any number of men that sleep around indesriminately. When young men learn that young women are more than notches on bedposts and when the same young women learn that sex does not equate to respect or love we might be headed in a different direction.
Or any number of men that sleep around indesriminately.
Not a lot of them sleeping around by themselves.
Well, maybe they are-but who'd admit it? :D
you progressive liberal dipshit with the POTUS 2012 bumpersticker on your Prius.
I believe that is spelled Pious...
Not even 1 vote???? You mean no one even messed up or wanted to be different???
In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20121112_In_59_Philadelphia_voting_wards__Mitt_Rom ney_got_zero_votes.html
Cuyahoga County precinct map shows areas where Obama beat Romney unanimously
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2012/11/cuyahoga_county_precinct_map_s.html#incart_river
In my little hick-ass redneck township even Obama got a few votes!
It's means Obama beat the odds and got 100% of the vote in 59 districts in PA and 99% of the vote in over 100 districts in Ohio. And rumor has it the O didn't win a state with voter ID.
The rumored most the most technologically advance country in the history of man, yet we can't seem to find voting system that isn't suspect to manipulation.
Ret10Echo
11-12-2012, 17:36
Simple
Those that voted Dim...found the ONE thing they wanted to hear...
FREE Healthcare
FREE Education
FREE Food
NO Work
GAY Marriage
IMMIGRATION...no longer illegal...
"THEY" OWE YOU...so we TAKE it from them
I'm BLACK
I'm a DEMOCRAT
They chose the one they wanted...ignored the rest...checked a box, pressed a button...
It's means Obama beat the odds and got 100% of the vote in 59 districts in PA and 99% of the vote in over 100 districts in Ohio. And rumor has it the O didn't win a state with voter ID.
The rumored most the most technologically advance country in the history of man, yet we can't seem to find voting system that isn't suspect to manipulation.
Or maybe its because Obama is 'apostle' sent to create 'heaven here on earth'
http://www.examiner.com/article/florida-professor-obama-an-apostle-sent-to-create-heaven-here-on-earth
Or maybe its because Obama is 'apostle' sent to create 'heaven here on earth'
Amazing.....but I stick with my thoughts of the Pied Piper ;)
Badger52
11-12-2012, 17:52
This is the closest I've been to LA in a few decades...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks-campaign-20121110,0,3895511,full.column
The author's BLUF:
Which means Republicans weren't beaten only by arithmetic this time. They lost through willful blindness.
Not familiar with that paper anymore, or this particular writer, but she cites some dynamics that, within the media, were accurate and now part of the record.
Just out of curiosity ('cause it turns out in another lifetime I went to school with the editor) I checked out what's shakin' in Ames, IA.
http://amestrib.com/sections/opinion/editorials/tribune-editorial-president%E2%80%99s-second-term-won%E2%80%99t-be-easier-first.html
Congress and Obama have until year’s end to cobble together a serviceable plan to prevent an array of tax increases and budget cuts from automatically taking effect. With the Senate still in Democratic hands and the House led by Republicans, Obama faces essentially the same partisan challenges to legislative progress that he struggled with the past four years.
.....
In his victory speech late Tuesday, Obama acknowledged that finding common ground between the parties won’t be easy, but insisted, “We are not as divided as our politics suggests. We’re not as cynical as the pundits believe.” We certainly hope he’s right, but we’ve also seen this movie before: These days, the post-election period of conciliatory sentiment lasts about as long as the next news cycle.
..... And rumor has it the O didn't win a state with voter ID.
Might want to check the rumor mill there P.
Barry won Colorado and we do indeed have to show an ID when voting.
From the Colorado SecState office .......
All voters who vote at the polls must provide identification. If you are voting by mail for the first time, you may also need to provide a photocopy of your identification
Link ...... http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/vote/acceptableFormsOfID.html
:munchin
Might want to check the rumor mill there P.
Barry won Colorado and we do indeed have to show an ID when voting.
From the Colorado SecState office .......
Link ...... http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/vote/acceptableFormsOfID.html
:munchin
Funny thing...I am pretty sure Ohio has a voter ID law as well!
I thought poor black folk couldnt get id????
Funny thing...I am pretty sure Ohio has a voter ID law as well!
You are correct Sir !!!!!
Ohio law requires that every voter, upon appearing at the polling place to vote on Election Day, to announce his or her full name and current address and provide proof of the voter's identity.
Link to Ohio SecState ..... http://www.sos.state.oh.us/elections/Voters/FAQ/ID.aspx
You are correct Sir !!!!!
Link to Ohio SecState ..... http://www.sos.state.oh.us/elections/Voters/FAQ/ID.aspx
Well having a law and applying it may be two different things (for example Federal Immigration law)
Might want to check the rumor mill there P.
Barry won Colorado and we do indeed have to show an ID when voting.
From the Colorado SecState office .......
Link ...... http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/vote/acceptableFormsOfID.html
:munchin
It was a rumor and there are lots of rumors flying about....maybe lots of pissed off folks grasping at straws.....maybe not in some cases. It would be nice to find a voting system that wasn't suspect, one that would the end recounts and rumors.
It was a rumor and there are lots of rumors flying about....maybe lots of pissed off folks grasping at straws.....maybe not in some cases. It would be nice to find a voting system that wasn't suspect, one that would the end recounts and rumors.
the purple thumb????
ZonieDiver
11-12-2012, 18:27
It's means Obama beat the odds and got 100% of the vote in 59 districts in PA and 99% of the vote in over 100 districts in Ohio. And rumor has it the O didn't win a state with voter ID.
The rumored most the most technologically advance country in the history of man, yet we can't seem to find voting system that isn't suspect to manipulation.
"Rumor has it..."?
Here at PS.com?
That's where we are today?
Sad.
That could mean that women can get the job done in less time. :munchin
I certainly would not disagree with a QP.
However, I offer this from generations of women in the US.
1. A woman's work is never done.
2. Men finish so damned fast. :D
"Rumor has it..."?
Here at PS.com?
That's where we are today?
Sad.
Considering that is the news 6 days after the election...it is sad and it should not be that way.
the purple thumb????
Maybe or that dye they put on money.
Simple
Those that voted Dim...found the ONE thing they wanted to hear...
FREE Healthcare
FREE Education
FREE Food
NO Work
GAY Marriage
IMMIGRATION...no longer illegal...
"THEY" OWE YOU...so we TAKE it from them
I'm BLACK
I'm a DEMOCRAT
They chose the one they wanted...ignored the rest...checked a box, pressed a button...
If I may, let me put this another way:
On this Veteran’s Day, 2012, St Peter summoned all the fallen American dead from all the wars since the Revolution to greet the newbies at the Pearly Gates.
The most dead were first in line to greet the new arrivals. Many had fought with Gen, Washington and were eager to learn what their sacrifice had achieved. Of course, from the back of the formation, the least dead, those from WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, were shouting things like, “You'll be sorry”, and “Jodi's got you girl tonight”.
The FNGs were from wars dating back to WW2 and a few of those looked into the ranks searching for familiar faces. They were shocked at how young many looked. They waved, tentatively at some, not really sure how they could look so young, still.
So, as the new guys were parading through the gates, one of them said to St. Peter, “I died before last weeks election. If I may, do you know the results?”
St. Peter said, “I do. Those who still live, and live free thanks to your sacrifice, have voted for those who promised them tax funded abortions and healthcare, homosexual marriage, free food with something called Food Stamps, higher taxes on those who provide jobs, and to allow those who illegally migrate to America to stay and enjoy treatment as good as or better than her real citizens. There's more, but I can see in you faces, and those behind me, well...,” his strong heavenly voice trailed off.
As word spread through the formation, various dialects reflected, more or less, the same sentiment, “I died for that?”
Pat
ZonieDiver
11-12-2012, 20:17
Considering that is the news 6 days after the election...it is sad and it should not be that way.
The 'news'? Where? What is YOUR source for this 'rumor' that YOU have now promoted to 'news'? What I want to know is WHERE did you read it, see it or hear it?
My other point is that there was a time here at PS.com when 'rumors' about important events were NOT tolerated. I still don't think they should be. That they now do seem to be accepted is what I found, and still find, sad.
So... would you please give some attribution as to the source of YOUR 'rumor'?
Dozer523
11-12-2012, 20:53
Might want to check the rumor mill there P.
Barry won Colorado and we do indeed have to show an ID when voting.
in Illinois I didn't have to show my ID.
But my signature sure had to match from my voter registration. And when I registered I had to show ID (prove I was who i said/thought i was) and my electric bill to prove I lived where I said I did.
I' just not buying the arguement that we have an easily manipulated voting system. But it sounds like a good excuse ...
Dozer523
11-12-2012, 20:58
It would be nice to find a voting system that wasn't suspect, one that would the end recounts and rumors. you mean like OURS? The envy of the entire planet?
Yeah, If only. Migraines acting up, sorry.
D:
Do you think Wasserman-Schultz represents the interests of 51% of this country?
Are her comments as the Chair of the DNC not representative of the positions of the Party? If not, why is she the Chair?TR--
The point I've been making for years is that the GOP could best serve its own interests by toning down its portion of the dual echo chamber so Americans could focus on questions like the ones you've raised.
We made the decision not to do so and the Democrats turned that approach on its head, paint Romney as an extremist, and direct focus to our own party platform.
(IMO, in this day and age, a party platform is less of a guide to its political agenda than a POTUS's state of the union addresses and the opposing party's response. Also, whom the president picks to be on his staff is a bigger cue as well. YMMV.)I would maintain that Romney is much more moderate and closer to the center than the leadership of the Dims. More likely to compromise as well.
In short, I believe that the Reps tacked far closer to the middle than the Dims did.IMO, this transition did not happen until after the RNC. By then, it was too late. There was too much rhetoric for Romney and his supporters to overcome, to clarify, and to explain against the din of the Democrat's noise machine.
MOO, the process would have benefited greatly if the GOP had comported itself with the assumption that it is going to win so that there are not such huge gaps between campaign rhetoric and policy choices. On many substantive issues, significant elements of various policies are going to be consistent from one administration to the next. By pretending that they won't be, candidates limit their range of action and open themselves up to charges of "flip flopping." Maybe next time.
Very little compromise in their positions.What framework does the GOP leave its own politicians and members to compromise? Do voters notice how Republicans treat members and elected officials who don't conform to the party line? (More on this point presently.)
Very Presidential of you. Quite humble as well.:o Well... :) As I've pointed out, I've been well schooled by historians who were more interested teaching me how to think and were less concerned with what I thought. And since the field of history--a craft that is as focused on debating interpretations of the past even more than it is on describing what happened in the past--remains a matter of ambivalence to most Americans,
And I have other competitive advantages: I've not owned a radio in almost twenty years. I pretty much stay out of the blogosphere. Up until this past spring, I didn't drink. With each passing day, America's favorite multi syllable words are: "likeyouknow" "whatever" and "pwnd." And I archived a copy of Google Desktop Search before Google took it out of play.
MOO: The R's and Romney avoided labeling themselves in order to appear palatable to the broader base. The D's and Obama on the other hand played to win, said to hell with certain voting blocs they felt were lost causes and pushed hard for those on the fence. As Sigaba pointed out, the D noise machine pushed the rape gaffes and some of the more hard-line R and conservative views front and center, essentially allowing the D media machine to define the R agenda. The Democrats defined what they are and more importantly, what they aren't; whereas the Republicans attempt at flexibility allowed them to be molded by their opponents into what they aren't, and IMHO, that is what pushed many fence sitters left. It became the devil we know against the devil who might be a saint who might be a devil.
As for the OP, women can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with whomever they want, just not on my tax dollar.
My (bitter) .02
As for the OP, women can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with whomever they want, just not on my tax dollar.You've obviously not visited the Paula Broadwell thread.
You've obviously not visited the Paula Broadwell thread.
Where the CIA's Cloak and Shag Her[1] budget comes from we will never know...
[1] http://nypost.tumblr.com/post/35495818763/cloak-and-shag-her-cia-boss-petraeus-quits-over
Because he was ABO. Same reason I supported Romney.
Why did you vote for Obama and claim to be a Republican?Dustmeister--
I think it is tremendously unfortunate that you would again question my intellectual integrity. Under different circumstances, I would take personal offense and offer a reply that you most certainly would not enjoy reading, that you'd not soon forget, and that would probably lead to my banning.
Instead, I will simply point out that interested parties can use this BB's robust search function to evaluate the accuracy of your second statement. IMO, my previous posts speak for themselves IRT my views of the current American president as well as my political leanings.
Moreover, they can use the search button to evaluate the accuracy of your recollection of your motivation. They may be specifically interested in a thread that was started on 13 October 2011 in which a respected member of this BB predicted Gingrich's victory (professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35448). (IIRC, Super Tuesday was 6 March 2012.)
What ever third parties conclude, I would like to state the following clearly. While I am immensely grateful for your armed service to the United States and I consider it my good fortune that you see fit to take the time to respond to my posts, I am profoundly disinterested in jumping through the ever shifting hoops of anyone's hyper patriotism ;) even if that person has been there and done that.
Dustmeister--
I think it is tremendously unfortunate that you would again question my intellectual integrity. Under different circumstances, I would take personal offense and offer a reply that you most certainly would not enjoy reading, that you'd not soon forget, and that would probably lead to my banning.
Your question about Gingrich was as ludicrous as mine-you posed it to elicit a reaction.
If you want to convey something that you're afraid might ban you, go to PM; that's what the function is for.
On edit:
I went back and re-read the post in question, and that was just mean.
Sometimes you just aggravate me to no end, Sig, but you're fair, and don't deserve disrespect. I apologize.
The 'news'? Where? What is YOUR source for this 'rumor' that YOU have now promoted to 'news'? What I want to know is WHERE did you read it, see it or hear it?
My other point is that there was a time here at PS.com when 'rumors' about important events were NOT tolerated. I still don't think they should be. That they now do seem to be accepted is what I found, and still find, sad.
So... would you please give some attribution as to the source of YOUR 'rumor'?
My apologies ZD...That's a duh on my part...here's some of the rumors and problems for Election 2012
https://www.google.com/search?q=voting+machine+errors+2012&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/election-fraud-obama-won-more-than-99-percent-of-the-vote-in-more-than-100-ohio-precincts
http://marketdailynews.com/2012/11/12/election-fraud-barack-obama-won-more-than-99-percent-of-the-vote-in-more-than-100-ohio-precincts/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/12/breaking-romney-got-zero-votes-59-philadelphia-voting-divisions-zero
http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-12/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-romney-sasha-issenberg
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/05/philly-activist-group-shreds-gop-registrations
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/blog-summaries/267217-reid-urges-fast-complete-counting-of-arizona-votes
http://american3rdposition.com/?p=8416
And of course there is the continuing Allen West saga....
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/political/allen-west-patrick-murphy-race-update-west-could-challenge-district-18-results-for-months
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/allen-west-camp-st-lucie%E2%80%99s-recount-%E2%80%98sham%E2%80%99
Just in the sampling of there recount he picked up over 500 votes and his opponent lost over 600. In a race that is decided by a few thousand votes those are big discrepancies.
The turnout percent in St. Lucie alone was 140.92%, that percentage appears to be a massive influx of unregistered voters who just show with an ID and get to vote.
http://www.slcelections.com/Pdf%20Docs/2012%20General/rescan/GEMS%20SOVC%20REPORT.pdf
Not to say that it isn't all on the up and up, but I do believe the voting system is in dire need of some tightening up.